March 17, 2014

2014 Australian GP

Formula One is supposed to be hard, hard to engineer and hard to drive. By that measure the new rules have succeed: the engineering is hard, only 15 cars crossed the finish line and drivers certainly had their hands full.

However, watching the Australian GP, you did not get the feeling these latest generation cars are hard to drive simply because of more torque and less downforce. The complications of the drivetrain, the energy harvesting needs and particularly the brake-by-wire system make the cars look random and non-linear. That these cars are somewhat alien to drive may very well explain why rookies did so well this past week end: they are, in a sense, empty vessels for engineers to fill.

The "old" guard will certainly sit up and take notice, Alonso, Raikkonen, Button and to some extent Vettel, Hamilton and even Rosberg, will all be keeping and eye on Bottas, Kvyat and Magnussen. The two rookies had spectacular races, Bottas would would certainly have been on the podium had he not kissed the wall hunting Alonso in the open in laps. He came back to score more points than Willams scored in the whole of last season.

Mercedes confirmed expectations with Rosberg, who led flag to flag with ease, but also showed how fragile these cars can be with Hamilton only completing 2 race laps.

Ferrari was a disappointment, Alonso simply did not have the power to pass and Raikkonen looked like he was fighting the rear brakes the whole race. Small consolation having both cars finish.

But the most intriguing part of the race has to be "Flowgate". Ricciardo and Renault got screwed by Red Bull who, in turn, screwed themselves and made F1 look bad.

Boiling down a very technical issue, the FIA homologated fuel flow meters, manufactured in the UK by Gill Sensors, have been very inconsistent in pre-season development and testing, with variations of +/- 5% and more, to the point where there was talk of the season starting with teams running without them. This would clearly have led to chaos. The FIA, aware of the issue calibrates each sensor and teams are given an "offset" tied to that specific piece. Applied, this calculation should insure the team falls within the legal limits.

Red Bull was not happy with the sensor readings on Ricciardo's car in qualifying and wanted to go back to one used in practice. The FIA agreed and gave Red Bull its matching "offset".Red Bull could have gone with it but Newey refused to apply the calculation, which would have resulted in a loss of power, insisting his calculation model (via the injectors) was more precise.

Now you can argue Newey is a genius and his method is better all you want but, but you cannot have each team run their own scales and police themselves. You certainly cannot tell a governing body you know better than them and think you'll get away with it.

b. The Technical Directive goes on to state: “If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a backup system” (emphasis added.)

Red Bull say they will appeal, they are wasting time. They got away with getting the tires changed to their advantage last season, it's doubtful they will get away with changing another technical regulation to their advantage this year, can they? Ricciardo. engine will be dynode by the FIA this week, stay tuned.

It is interesting to note that Red Bull had also written software to override Renault's own on Vettel's car. Clearly that did not work out so well either.

Both these events speak to a mix of desperation and arrogance, usually not the best tasting cocktail.

That was the quietest F1 start I have ever seen and the cars look worse going around a track playing follow the leader. Bring back fuel stops and let them rev the engine and we might have some noise back. I certainly hope the season gets better then this.

They defend with max power on the engine but mostly with ion power. They save it around, do a slower lap in the end, but remain in front of they guy chasing. Nothing new there. Daniel however seamed to have quite a lot of that, not just holding Kevin behind, but bursting away. Either that ion power is much better this year and we (I) only noticed it on this on his car, or he made better use of it, or... there was also something extra from the ICE #flowgate ;)

You'd think that this one would be relatively easy to sort out. They know how much fuel was in the car at the start, just measure the fuel at the end and see which of the fuel flow calculations matches up to the remaining fuel. Parc ferme after the race already involves draining a fuel sample as well.

You are sounding like a RBR hater in your writing. Might need some countersteer in your technique. It was only after tires were ripping themselves to shreds on track last year that tires got changed, RB may have wanted the change but failure from Pirelli was the motivation. And this "It is interesting to note that Red Bull had also written software to override Renault's own on Vettel's car. Clearly that did not work out so well either." Renault optioned Red Bull's programming code because it worked better than their own after they asked RB for the help.

Two Observations:The new engine package sounds terrible. For me, I never realized how much the engine sound adds to the racing excitement.Kamui is a good guy but his driving is sloppy. Iceman from Top Gun says it best, in that Kamui is everyone's problem. Every time Kamui is on the track, he is unsafe.

Before you slam Kamui, keep in mind that his lockup at the start was due to a mechanical issue, not driver error. Here is the stewards finding http://axisofoversteer.com/blog/documents/Stewards%20Decisions/Sunday%2016%20March%202014/Formula%20One%20Australian%20Grand%20Prix%202014%20Document%20-%2052.pdf

The noise is disappointing but the difficulty driving the cars really made for a good show. I saw more 'around the outside' passes in 5 laps than i saw in the previous 5 years.

The noise, though, is an issue. If they aren't even revving out to the 15k limit what can be done? If its a question of reliability then inext year it will be resolved. The teams will get the reliability they need for sure by then. If it is about the torque and driveability, they'll need more grip via better aero, better tires etc. Unfortunately, that will take away from the sliding and make passing that much more difficult again. If they can keep the spectacle of cars sliding a bit and just improve the sound a little bit, without being fake, it will be perfect IMO.

I have one huge complaint: where is the graphics suite for on boards showing me battery levels, charge/discharge rates, boost pressure etc?? How am I supposed to be remotely excited about the new powertrains when I have no clue how they're being deployed? Huge fail imo

Absolutely agree. Would be great to see some sort of boost guage + (K)ERS deployment bars. Hopefully that is something they realize shouold be added, so fans can get excited for the new tech. Could really help make up for the lack of sensory experience with the low noise level, too.

a big point of having the fuel flow meter and not just an average fuel flow is that it basically limits peak power. being able to run higher power on demand would be a big advantage, even if the average power (average fuel flow) is the same. on a passing part of the track and someone is close? more power! un-passable part of the track? less power! you could get even more nuanced and use the power in parts of the track it will make a bigger difference.

FIA doesn't want this, even if you used the same amount of fuel at the end of the day.